1:1The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; 2As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. 3The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

Though not clear from the KJV, Mark is alleged to be citing this passage wrongly. Composite attributions suit a common practice of Jewish exegetes. Z. H. Chages in The Student's Guide to the Talmud [172ff] relates a practice of the rabbis of quoting various persons under one and the same name. The rabbis "adopted as one of their methods that of calling different personages by one and the same name if they found them akin in any feature of their characters or activities or if they found a similarity between any of their actions." Thus for example Malachi and Ezra are said to be the "same person" (Meg. 15a) because they both say similar things (Mal. 2:2, Ez. 10:2). Chages gives examples of as many as three people being treated as one person because of such similarities.

The purpose of this collapsing down of identifies was to enact a principle of praising the righteous and pious, and honoring those due such praise. Thus when Mark attributes the words of Malachi to Isaiah, he is enacting this principle by essentially melding the two prophets and giving attribution to the one who is the most deserving of honor and praise.

4John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. 5And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins. 6And John was clothed with camel’s hair, and with a girdle of a skin about his loins; and he did eat locusts and wild honey; 7And preached, saying, There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose. 8I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.

9And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. 10And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him: 11And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 12And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness. 13And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.

Could Jesus have failed the Temptations? No, I don't think Jesus could have failed -- not in the least. Someone will say, "Well, so what did the temptations prove, then?" I'll explain what they proved with an analogy. Let us recall the story of the Sphinx: Persons approaching this creature were required to answer a riddle posed by it in order to pass. Losers were summarily dispatched. The only way to get past it was to answer the riddle -- right? Well, let's say that rather than answer the riddle, one of these Greek fellows stopped by the time travel surplus store, and instead of answering the riddle, blew the Sphinx away with a howitzer. So did he defeat the Sphinx? Of course he did. And he did so by rendering the Sphinx's challenge irrelevant.

As I see it, this is what the purpose of the Temptation of Jesus was -- it was to prove Satan to be irrelevant in context. Jesus experienced temptation firsthand (Hebrews 4:15) and knew what it was like, but this is not the same thing as saying that he could have fallen for it (and as Hebrews goes on to say, he didn't fall for it -- cf. Hebrews 2:17-18: "Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted." ). A Greek could hear the Sphinx's riddle, and say, "Yeah, so what?" before blowing the beast to smithereens. In the same way, Jesus was tested, and was guaranteed a 100%. The Temptation was a glorious demonstration of what the Incarnation had accomplished.

14Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, 15And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. 16Now as he walked by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew his brother casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. 17And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men. 18And straightway they forsook their nets, and followed him. 19And when he had gone a little further thence, he saw James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, who also were in the ship mending their nets. 20And straightway he called them: and they left their father Zebedee in the ship with the hired servants, and went after him. 21And they went into Capernaum; and straightway on the sabbath day he entered into the synagogue, and taught. 22And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes.

The actions of the fisherman indicate a much more extensive relationship with Jesus prior to this event. To simply leave family, one's most critical ingroup, with no other prompting than this would be an absurdity and not a realistic way of reading this text.

23And there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out, 24Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God. 25And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him. 26And when the unclean spirit had torn him, and cried with a loud voice, he came out of him. 27And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this? what new doctrine is this? for with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him. 28And immediately his fame spread abroad throughout all the region round about Galilee.

What then of 1 John 4:2, Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God..."Hey, what's this?!? An unclean spirit confessing that Jesus is of God! According to 1 John 4, that same spirit must be of God! Imagine a perfect God having an unclean spirit or an unclean spirit existing within God!" In the Markan passage, the demon in the man is not "confessing" that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh so much as the demon is merely stating this fact. Is stating something the same as confessing? The objection is forcing these two words to be equivalent when there is no reason to. Also, the context of 1 John 4 is different than that of Mark. John addresses his readers in verse 2: "This is how you [ie the receivers of this epistle] can recognize the Spirit of God....". The author of 1 John's exhortation to the readers of the epistle is giving members of the Church a way for them, mere humans that they are, to distinguish between the Spirit of God and lying spirits. The Markan passage does not deal with anything of the sort. It merely reports an encounter Jesus had with a demon. As such, it is a category fallacy to compare these two passages.

29And forthwith, when they were come out of the synagogue, they entered into the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John. 30But Simon’s wife’s mother lay sick of a fever, and anon they tell him of her. 31And he came and took her by the hand, and lifted her up; and immediately the fever left her, and she ministered unto them. 32And at even, when the sun did set, they brought unto him all that were diseased, and them that were possessed with devils. 33And all the city was gathered together at the door. 34And he healed many that were sick of divers diseases, and cast out many devils; and suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him. 35And in the morning, rising up a great while before day, he went out, and departed into a solitary place, and there prayed. 36And Simon and they that were with him followed after him. 37And when they had found him, they said unto him, All men seek for thee. 38And he said unto them, Let us go into the next towns, that I may preach there also: for therefore came I forth. 39And he preached in their synagogues throughout all Galilee, and cast out devils.

The service of the mother indicates to the reader that she is able to return to her social duties.

40And there came a leper to him, beseeching him, and kneeling down to him, and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. 41And Jesus, moved with compassion, put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean. 42And as soon as he had spoken, immediately the leprosy departed from him, and he was cleansed. 43And he straitly charged him, and forthwith sent him away; 44And saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man: but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing those things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them. 45But he went out, and began to publish it much, and to blaze abroad the matter, insomuch that Jesus could no more openly enter into the city, but was without in desert places: and they came to him from every quarter.

The word "compassion" is sometimes rendered as meaning "angry" and it is supposed that the former is less embarrassing to Jesus. It isn't; Jesus had a perfect right to be perturbed. Jesus was preaching in sysnagogues and the man put him "on the spot" to get a healing. But this meant that Jesus would be seen as ritually impure; hence the admonition to say nothing, but the man gracelessly noised about the healing anyway, forcing Jesus to not be able to enter cities openly and continue his work (not because he was unclean in actuality, but because others would see him as so).

2:1And again he entered into Capernaum after some days; and it was noised that he was in the house. 2And straightway many were gathered together, insomuch that there was no room to receive them, no, not so much as about the door: and he preached the word unto them. 3And they come unto him, bringing one sick of the palsy, which was borne of four. 4And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press, they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay. 5When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee. 6But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, 7Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only? 8And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts? 9Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk? 10But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) 11I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house. 12And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion.

If Jesus has authority on earth to forgive sins, why does he ask the Father to do it in Luke 23:34? In the NT, the relationship between God, Jesus, and believer is framed in terms of a client-patron relationship. God is the patron (like the big rich guy who gives gifts); the believer is the client (who gets the gifts, and in turn is loyal to and serves the patron); Jesus is the broker -- who is a go-between for the two, and who acts upon the authority of the patron. Jesus is still the broker for God's forgiveness -- what we see above are two stages in the process: Luke 23:34 is the broker's request to the patron on the client's behalf -- an example of Jesus exercising the authority he has been given by letting the patron know who to forgive.

Jesus tells people that "their sins are forgiven." This may not seem significant to Western eyes, so an illustration is needed. If John does something bad to Joe, then Joe can forgive John. But it would be ridiculous for Jake - unless he were somehow related to Joe - to forgive John for what he did to Joe. Forgiveness requires the RIGHT to forgive; therefore, Jesus' forgiving the sins of others that He had no personal connection with indicates that He believed that He was the only One who was offended by all sins and therefore had the right to forgive them: God, the author of all moral law. Moreover, this is particularly a noteworthy claim in the context of Judaism, for as Charlesworth notes, "The faithful Jew...acknowledged that only God can forgive the sinner." [Chars.Jes, 49] So in effect, Jesus was assuming the place and role of the entire Temple sacrificial system authorized by God [Wrig.Who, 50] and claiming to be God's broker for forgiveness.

There have been counter-arguments to this interpretation, of course. Sanders [Sand.JesJud, 273] believes that here Jesus was not claiming to be God, but was "presumably speaking for God" as an OT prophet would. He also says, "We have no reason to think that the Pharisees thought that priests could not announce forgiveness on God's behalf."

There are three problems with Sanders' counter-argument. First, it is an argument from silence. Second, it violates the plain implication of the text. If Jesus had been simply speaking for God, then we would expect that He would have prefaced His remarks with something like "God says..." as was done by OT prophets. We may speculate, of course, that this was what Jesus did and it was simply not recorded, but as the text plainly reads, at the very least Jesus was being extremely presumptuous and thinking of Himself being in God's appropriate place. Indeed, this was the very core of the objection made by the Jews, in Mark 2:6-7:

Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, "Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"

Third, of course, if the capability to forgive sins generally HAD been a practice of priests in that time, then readers of the Gospels would naturally object that Jesus was not thereby doing anything unique or upsetting to the Pharisees! If the Gospel writers knew this, why did they feature this story?

Fredrikson [Fred.GI, 105], meanwhile, regards Jesus as only saying that the man's sins were forgiven in the sense that the sin causing the sickness was forgiven, and Jesus was going to "forgive" the man's sins in healing him. In support of this she cites the Prayer of Nabodinus, where that king of Babylon speaks of a Jewish healer pardoning his sins.

Naturally, Fredrikson must see the situation illustrated by Mark as "contrived" in order to maintain this interpretation. She must deny the veracity of most of the account, ignore the objections of the Jews in Mark 2:6-7, and contrive her own application of the claim in order to emasculate it. Also, in the case of the Nabodinus prayer, we may note that Nabodinus, unlike the paralytic with Jesus, would have done something to offend the Jewish healer - namely, keep his people as captives after attacking their land! As with our illustration above with Jim and Jake, there must be something to personally forgive for someone to have the ability to extend forgiveness.

13And he went forth again by the sea side; and all the multitude resorted unto him, and he taught them. 14And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the receipt of custom, and said unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him. 15And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him. 16And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners? 17When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

A person like Matthew (Levi) would be well-off enough to invite Jesus to his house with others, but would also be someone despised by the average Jew for his constant contact with unclean Gentiles, and the reputation of tax collectors as rapacious thieves and collaborators. "Sinners" would carry the meaning of those who didn't follow the strict understanding of law required by the Pharisees [Hil.GM, 174]. These are persons the Pharisees held themselves aloof from, and their mockery of Jesus is an attempt at riposte.

18And the disciples of John and of the Pharisees used to fast: and they come and say unto him, Why do the disciples of John and of the Pharisees fast, but thy disciples fast not? 19And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them? as long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. 20But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days. 21No man also seweth a piece of new cloth on an old garment: else the new piece that filled it up taketh away from the old, and the rent is made worse. 22And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: else the new wine doth burst the bottles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred: but new wine must be put into new bottles. 23And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. 24And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? 25And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? 26How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? 27And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: 28Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

For more on these passages see http://www.tektonics.org/tsr/abby.html and http://www.tektonics.org/lp/markmen.html The patch and wineskins analogy would indicate that Jesus' new message cannot be constrained by the old "forms" of Judaism, which indeed would have to be either completely renewed or else destroyed. [Hil.GM, 177]

3:1And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand. 2And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him. 3And he saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth. 4And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace. 5And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other. 6And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him. 7But Jesus withdrew himself with his disciples to the sea: and a great multitude from Galilee followed him, and from Judaea, 8And from Jerusalem, and from Idumaea, and from beyond Jordan; and they about Tyre and Sidon, a great multitude, when they had heard what great things he did, came unto him. 9And he spake to his disciples, that a small ship should wait on him because of the multitude, lest they should throng him. 10For he had healed many; insomuch that they pressed upon him for to touch him, as many as had plagues. 11And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God. 12And he straitly charged them that they should not make him known. 13And he goeth up into a mountain, and calleth unto him whom he would: and they came unto him.

The so-called "Messianic secret" motif (in which Jesus commands that was he does not be made known) does not indicate that Jesus was "hesitant" about his divinity. Pilch and Malina explain in the Handbook of Biblical Social Values [59ff] three social paradigms that come into play:

1. Envy -- the begrudging of possession of some quality or object by another.
2. Limited Good -- the ancient perception that all good things are limited and finite in quantity, including intangibles, like:
3. Honor -- the accord given by a person to others, a value in the ancient world that they took as seriously as we today take paying the bills.

Taken together, these factors tell us that Jesus' reticence is an example of what would have been regarded as honorable behavior in the ancient world. For Jesus to have been plain about his divinity and Messianic nature in public would have aroused serious envy (as we do see it did, from his opponents, especially in John) as he would have been claiming a high level of honor, and this would have been seen as drawing from the well of honor, which was a "limited good". Thus to make such claims would have been seen as taking honor from others. The society of Wrede's day was one of limitless good, and without such heavy concentration on honor; hence it is little wonder Wrede came up with the explanation of a "Messianic secret". In an individualist society with limitless good, the thing to do is go out and share what you have with others, and even brag about it. The world Jesus lived in would have found such behavior intolerable -- as did his opponents, and as did the residents of Nazareth. Like many fanciful theories, the "Messianic secret" is an idea that is time out of mind, and the same may be said of all secondary theories that depend upon it.

One more point needs to be noted: Why is it that Jesus often stopped demons from speaking of him? This has been appealed to as part of the Messianic secret theme, but in fact it is not, and the reason for it is different than the above. Malina and Rohrbaugh (Social Science commentary, 183) note that the demons were seeking to protect themselves by "magically using" the "true identity" of Jesus. A desperate move, yes, but deserving of a rebuke, and not an element of Messianic secrecy!

14And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, 15And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils: 16And Simon he surnamed Peter; 17And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder: 18And Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Canaanite, 19And Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed him: and they went into an house.

The selection of 12 would undoubtedly reflect the 12 tribes of Irsael, suggesting that Jesus saw himself as representing and/or reconstituting Israel. There is not much of an issue over differing names in this list; in actuality, there is only one substantive name variation, that of "Thaddeus" and "Lebbaeus" in Matthew 10. I have yet to see a commentator who thinks this was part of the original text. Another issue is the supposed discrepancy between Judas (not Iscariot) and Thaddeus among the Synoptic Gospels; while it is possible, as the historian E. P. Sanders has suggested, that these are two different people, one replacing the other, I think it is far more likely that Judas non-Iscariot changed his name to Thaddeus and used that name after the resurrection. I mean, after all, would you want to have the same name as the guy who betrayed your Master? I wouldn't. If your name were Ted Bundy, or Adolf Hitler, I guess you'd change it too.

20And the multitude cometh together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread. 21And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.

In Matthew the word "family" is used: "Relatives normally sought to conceal other relatives' behavior that would shame the family" in ancient times, even as today [Keener commentary on Matthew, 370]. Friends would as well do the same for those in their ingroup. Too much is made of this alleged difference; Mark has created a chiastic structure here [Witherington, Mark commentary, 153] that shows that he means to identify the "friends" with the family of Jesus. More inportantly, "friends" is not in the text; the actual words are those "with him".

22And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils. 23And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan? 24And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end. 27No man can enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house. 28Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: 29But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: 30Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.

The Holy Spirit is God's active principle in the world, as the Son (Word, Logos) is the Father's command and direction. By "active principle" we mean that the Holy Spirit is the personified effect of God in the lives of people and in the world. (See our essay here.) By "blaspheming" the Holy Spirit, Jesus therefore refers to one who denies the divine authority and activity of the Spirit -- as did those who attributed the exorcisms of the story to Beelzebul. Dunn, in Vol. 2 of Christ and the Spirit, puts it this way:

...the beneficial effect of [Jesus'] exorcisms was so self-evidently of God and wrought by his Spirit, that to attribute it to Satan was the worse kind of perversity -- deliberately to confuse the Spirit of God with the power of Satan was to turn one's back on God and his forgiveness (Mark 3:29).

In terms of the post-resurrection scenario, this also applies to those who refuse the prodding of the Holy Spirit to believe the Gospel. They deny the activity of the Holy Spirit in prodding them to believe, and thus blaspheme the Holy Spirit by putting his activity down to guilt feelings, intestinal gas, etc. This is why we are also told that "whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him" -- the Son of man, God's Word and Wisdom, is the message of God; it is not that part of the Godhead which convicts us. The matter is really rather simpler than some televangelists have supposed.

31There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. 32And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. 33And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? 34And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 35For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

Is this "disrespect" to Jesus' mother and family? The analysis begs two key questions: 1) Is the Gospel message true, or did Jesus believe it to be true? If the answer is yes in either case, then this is not disrespect, it is the urgent truth. Tulbure as an atheist begs the question and naturally assumes the message to be untrue. Presumably he thinks he proves it false elsewhere, but then this issue belongs at the end of his text, not at the beginning. 2) What was the relationship of Jesus to his family before this incident? The data would suggest that the "disrespect" was coming from the other direction. Mark's report of this incident, which Tulbure ignores in this context and does not connect to this narrative, says that the family came because "went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself." (Mark 3:21) The word "lay hold" is krateo and signifies taking hold fast (as in taking by the hand), or seizing by strength -- it is the same word used of those who came to arrest Jesus (Matt. 26:57). "Relatives normally sought to conceal other relatives' behavior that would shame the family" in ancient times, even as today [Keener commentary on Matthew, 370]. Jesus' mother and brothers (but not his sisters -- this was no "friendly family outing" but the head of the household arriving with the "goon squad" to pick up the wayward brother!) showing up and declaring openly that he was mad, and wanting to seize and hide him, sounds like the "disrespect" had its origins in another place! Elsewhere John' gospel has Jesus' brothers mockingly suggesting that he go to the feast and show off, though they did not believe in him (John 7:5).

1And he began again to teach by the sea side: and there was gathered unto him a great multitude, so that he entered into a ship, and sat in the sea; and the whole multitude was by the sea on the land. 2And he taught them many things by parables, and said unto them in his doctrine, 3Hearken; Behold, there went out a sower to sow: 4And it came to pass, as he sowed, some fell by the way side, and the fowls of the air came and devoured it up. 5And some fell on stony ground, where it had not much earth; and immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth: 6But when the sun was up, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away. 7And some fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up, and choked it, and it yielded no fruit. 8And other fell on good ground, and did yield fruit that sprang up and increased; and brought forth, some thirty, and some sixty, and some an hundred. 9And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Seed is likely sown here before plowing; this makes better sense of it being tossed on rocky ground and elsewhere. Morris has seen this still being done in Palestine [Mor.GM, 336]. The stony ground means dirt with shallow bedrock; it sprang up quickly because the rock warmed the earth, encouraging the seeds to sprout sooner [337].

10And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable. 11And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: 12That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them. 13And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables? 14The sower soweth the word. 15And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts. 16And these are they likewise which are sown on stony ground; who, when they have heard the word, immediately receive it with gladness; 17And have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time: afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word’s sake, immediately they are offended. 18And these are they which are sown among thorns; such as hear the word, 19And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful. 20And these are they which are sown on good ground; such as hear the word, and receive it, and bring forth fruit, some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some an hundred.

Barry Henaut claims that although the parable itself here might have markers of oral tradition and contains Semitisms, the explanation does not, and therefore, it was probably invented by the church rather than given by Jesus. I daresay the logic here is rather strained: All we can really say is that the explanation was not taught for memory, so that later renditions of it were more freely adapted to Greek. There's no reason to say that the explanation did not have its roots in the words of Jesus.

21And he said unto them, Is a candle brought to be put under a bushel, or under a bed? and not to be set on a candlestick? 22For there is nothing hid, which shall not be manifested; neither was any thing kept secret, but that it should come abroad. 23If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

Skeptics ask: Are we to do our deeds before men (per Matthew 5) or is that wrong (per Matthew 6 and 23)? Note that Matthew 5 tells us to do deeds in the same way -- as what? The previous examples are of a city on a hill and a lamp. Lamps and cities don't light for the sake of showing off -- they are passive instruments. They don't seek or take praise; they don't know or care that anyone watches, they just shine and do their jobs. That's our example. On the other hand, the Matthew 6 verse is after a warning about not making a public spectacle out of your giving, and not announcing it with trumpets like the hypocrites do. Now if you are publicly announcing your "good deeds" and being a hypocrite, you are far from letting people see your good works: You are in fact setting a bad example, and being a poor witness for Christ (and actually, just a jerk in general, whoever you are). So the two pieces of direction in Matt. 5 and 6 are progressive education, and they go together: Set a good example, but don't do the peacock strut, lest you tarnish those good works with the stain of hypocrisy, and thereby defame the cause of Christ.

24And he said unto them, Take heed what ye hear: with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you: and unto you that hear shall more be given. 25For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath. 26And he said, So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed into the ground; 27And should sleep, and rise night and day, and the seed should spring and grow up, he knoweth not how. 28For the earth bringeth forth fruit of herself; first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear. 29But when the fruit is brought forth, immediately he putteth in the sickle, because the harvest is come.

30And he said, Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it? 31It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth: 32But when it is sown, it groweth up, and becometh greater than all herbs, and shooteth out great branches; so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it. 33And with many such parables spake he the word unto them, as they were able to hear it. 34But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.

This is another old saw which argues that Jesus was wrong because there are smaller seeds in existence, like the orchid. But the Greek word here is mikros, which defines thusly:

398. mikros, mik-ros'; includ. the comp. mikroteros, mik-rot'-er-os; appar. a prim. word; small (in size, quantity, number or (fig.) dignity):--least, less, little, small.

So, it is also used in Luke 9:48 -

And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great.

Obviously, Jesus did not mean here that he who was smallest in size would be greatest! So we suggest that the mustard seed description is not an evaluation of size at all (or exclusively), but an evaluation of worth - which is a matter of personal judgment that is quite acceptable and cannot be charged as erroneous. There is a related rabbinic proverb, "according to the quantity of a grain of mustard," which indicates the smallest quantity.)

Two other objections may crop out of this one. First, some versions refer to the mustard as a "shrub" but the word here is lachanon, meaning a vegetable or an herb. The KJV does get this closer to correct. (Rom. 14:2 "For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.") A second objection is that mustard becomes a tree. Of course we need to remind objectors that the scientific classification schemes of modern botany were not yet invented -- classification was by appearance and function, not by biology. In that regard, the mustard plant of Palestine (Sinapis nigra) could grow to a height of several (8-12, per Hil.GM, 233) feet and be considered a tree -- if not by the scheme of modern science (Question: Is a bonsai a "tree"?), then assuredly by the descriptive classification scheme of the ancients.

35And the same day, when the even was come, he saith unto them, Let us pass over unto the other side. 36And when they had sent away the multitude, they took him even as he was in the ship. And there were also with him other little ships. 37And there arose a great storm of wind, and the waves beat into the ship, so that it was now full. 38And he was in the hinder part of the ship, asleep on a pillow: and they awake him, and say unto him, Master, carest thou not that we perish? 39And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. 40And he said unto them, Why are ye so fearful? how is it that ye have no faith? 41And they feared exceedingly, and said one to another, What manner of man is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?

1And they came over unto the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gadarenes. 2And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit, 3Who had his dwelling among the tombs; and no man could bind him, no, not with chains: 4Because that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been plucked asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces: neither could any man tame him. 5And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the tombs, crying, and cutting himself with stones. 6But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him, 7And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not. 8For he said unto him, Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit. 9And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many. 10And he besought him much that he would not send them away out of the country. 11Now there was there nigh unto the mountains a great herd of swine feeding. 12And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them. 13And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand;) and were choked in the sea. 14And they that fed the swine fled, and told it in the city, and in the country. And they went out to see what it was that was done. 15And they come to Jesus, and see him that was possessed with the devil, and had the legion, sitting, and clothed, and in his right mind: and they were afraid. 16And they that saw it told them how it befell to him that was possessed with the devil, and also concerning the swine. 17And they began to pray him to depart out of their coasts. 18And when he was come into the ship, he that had been possessed with the devil prayed him that he might be with him. 19Howbeit Jesus suffered him not, but saith unto him, Go home to thy friends, and tell them how great things the Lord hath done for thee, and hath had compassion on thee. 20And he departed, and began to publish in Decapolis how great things Jesus had done for him: and all men did marvel. 21And when Jesus was passed over again by ship unto the other side, much people gathered unto him: and he was nigh unto the sea.

Where did this incident take place? Matthew says in the land of the "Gergesenes"; Mark says (though not in the KJV) "the country of the Gerasenes"; Luke says "country of the Gadarenes." What's the location, and is there a contradiction? We can elimiate "Gergesenes" right away -- that is a textual error found only in later mss.; better mss. say "Gadara" as Luke does. And Luke may have said "Gerasa" -- the textual tradition is not clear on that either {Archer, Bible Difficulties, 323]. So if there is any dispute, it is between Gadara and Gerasa -- maybe.

The differences, by the muddled textual issue, may have arisen at a time of later scribal activity, but it is also possible that one gospel writer said Gerasa, and others said Gadara. Why would they do this, and do they contradict? They do not contradict, because all the Gospels speak generally of the "country" of the town named, and both Gerasa and Gadara were part of the Decapolis, and this was part of Decapolis territory.

But, the critic may ask, why would they give different cities in the first place? We can only offer sound speculation based on data, and in so doing offer a general lesson in harmonization.

Geresa as a city grew "tremendously" during the period of 22-76 AD, and may have even been the capital of the Decapolis for a while. We might see why, in this light, someone like Mark would use it as a reference: It was the better-known of the two cities, and Mark's Roman audience would perhaps know Gerasa better than they knew Gadara. On the other hand, Matthew's Palestinian and Syrian readers lived near the area and would know about Gadara. My own life situation offers a parallel to this: I live in an incorporated suburb of Orlando that has its own name and identity. When I talk to people in this area, I tell them I live in that suburb and I mention it by name. But when I talk to someone from another state, I give Orlando as my residence -- knowing that they likely have never heard of such booming sites as "Winter Garden," "Oakland," or "Pine Hills".

This is a key to understanding differences in the Gospel accounts. Each writer had an audience. Each writer also had different experiences, education, and vocabulary. What they write had to be written with these frames of reference in mind. This was especially essential in an era when only 10% of people could read, and had to retain details in their heads. Everything had to be done to make material easier to remember. And this leads into the next issue, which is the biggie:

Was there one demoniac (Mark, Luke) or two (Matthew)? The common and simple answer given is by Archer:

If there were two of them, there was at least one, wasn't there? Mark and Luke center attention on the more prominent and outspoken of the two, the one whose demonic occupants called themselves "Legion" (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, p. 325).

Practically speaking, this answer is correct, if not complete, and does resolve the alleged contradiction. But there is more. If you have a red-letter Bible, look over Matthew. You'll notice that the teachings of Jesus form 5 major sections. This is something Matthew INTENTIONALLY did, for many reasons -- but our main reason of concern is that he was writing his Gospel as a showcase for the teachings of Jesus. A handbook, if you will. Jesus' miracles were of secondary concern and used only to the extent that they provided connecting narrative frameworks that allowed Matthew's gospel to fit properly in the genre of bioi (ancient biography). Thus it is no surprise that he lacks the sort of detail Mark and Luke give for the story. His main interest isn't in Jesus' actions, but in Jesus' words. Think how your pastor might use a Bible story -- if he wants to emphasize one part of it, he'll talk more about it in his sermon and less about other parts. This is more or less what Matthew is doing.

Luke and Mark are MORE concerned with action, though. You see fewer (in Mark) and more scattered (in Luke) "red letter" parts in their Gospels (especially Mark, which is an "action" gospel that moves at a quick pace -- as a hint, look how often he uses the word "immediately"). They would be inclined to describe what happened in more detail.

So why would they leave one man out? Three responses come to the fore.

1. The first is a theory that Matthew here (and elsewhere) doubles to fit the criteria of "two witnesses". However, Matthew does not double characters consistently enough for this to make a worthwhile explanation [Keener, 282].

2. A second idea is that Matthew, copying Mark, has followed a normal literary procedure for the day, in that he has left out other accounts by Mark (1:23-6 of the demoniac; also the blind man of 8:22-26) and so has chronologically displaced them, quite intentionally. Of course we do not agree that Matthew copied Mark, at least not in his original Aramaic edition; but the same process could conceivably have taken place using common oral tradition or an Aramaic original.

3. The third idea is simply practical: the second guy didn't do much, or as much. While the one guy came forth yelling and saying Legion and all that, the other probably hung back in the bushes yelling and physically cowering. We don't know exactly what happened, but the bottom line is that if he didn't do anything special, and Mark and Luke are emphasizing action, they aren't going to divert from the main story and tell all about the guy hiding in the bushes that had to be called out or chased down, and change their whole story to accommodate him! Wright in The Resurrection of the Son of God [613] notes within Luke the example of how Peter is reported only to have gone to the tomb, yet on the Emmaus Road the disciples say that "some of our number" went to the tomb. Clearly, "Luke is quite capable of highlighting one person when he knows, and tell us later, that more than one was involved....If Luke can say that there was one persob, and then later that there was more than one, the numerical differences between the different accounts of the women and the angels cannot be regarded as serious historical problems."

A couple of other points to keep in mind. In the NT era only 10% of people could read at most. Stories for the average Joe had to be easy to remember when read out loud to them. Adding extra detail beyond your purpose would have made your readers have to work too hard and they'd lose track of the main point. Imagine all you'd have to remember if you couldn't read or write (and it cost money you didn't have to have someone do it for you -- and there aren't any charities to help you learn to read or anything like that). Furthermore, writing materials such as parchment and ink are very expensive and very hard to get. You have only a limited amount of space to write something, and if you have an area of concentration, you don't need distracting "by the way" elements running around in your account. You get to that point, and you don't waste expensive and limited resources blathering about what in your context is a non-essential.

22And, behold, there cometh one of the rulers of the synagogue, Jairus by name; and when he saw him, he fell at his feet, 23And besought him greatly, saying, My little daughter lieth at the point of death: I pray thee, come and lay thy hands on her, that she may be healed; and she shall live. 24And Jesus went with him; and much people followed him, and thronged him. 25And a certain woman, which had an issue of blood twelve years, 26And had suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse, 27When she had heard of Jesus, came in the press behind, and touched his garment. 28For she said, If I may touch but his clothes, I shall be whole. 29And straightway the fountain of her blood was dried up; and she felt in her body that she was healed of that plague. 30And Jesus, immediately knowing in himself that virtue had gone out of him, turned him about in the press, and said, Who touched my clothes? 31And his disciples said unto him, Thou seest the multitude thronging thee, and sayest thou, Who touched me? 32And he looked round about to see her that had done this thing. 33But the woman fearing and trembling, knowing what was done in her, came and fell down before him, and told him all the truth. 34And he said unto her, Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace, and be whole of thy plague.

So then -- "mostly" dead (Mark) or completely dead (Matthew)? Tough one? Not really. Most commentators seem to regard this as one of those "freedom of composition" issues where Matthew, knowing that the girl would be dead by the time Jesus showed up, just telescoped the account. (Along with this goes certain ideas about Markan priority which I would say are better solved by recognizing a common oral tradition.) Beyond that, Blomberg notes that to see a contradiction here...

...is anachronistically to impose on an ancient text modern standards of precision in storytelling. What is more, in a world without modern medical monitors to establish the precise moment of expiry, there is not nearly so much difference between Matthew's arti eteleutesn in v. 18 (which could fairly be translated "just came to the point of death"; cf. Heb. 11:22) and eschates echer in Mark 5:23 (which could also be rendered "is dying").

35While he yet spake, there came from the ruler of the synagogue’s house certain which said, Thy daughter is dead: why troublest thou the Master any further? 36As soon as Jesus heard the word that was spoken, he saith unto the ruler of the synagogue, Be not afraid, only believe. 37And he suffered no man to follow him, save Peter, and James, and John the brother of James. 38And he cometh to the house of the ruler of the synagogue, and seeth the tumult, and them that wept and wailed greatly. 39And when he was come in, he saith unto them, Why make ye this ado, and weep? the damsel is not dead, but sleepeth. 40And they laughed him to scorn. But when he had put them all out, he taketh the father and the mother of the damsel, and them that were with him, and entereth in where the damsel was lying. 41And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise. 42And straightway the damsel arose, and walked; for she was of the age of twelve years. And they were astonished with a great astonishment. 43And he charged them straitly that no man should know it; and commanded that something should be given her to eat.

Skeptics here accuse Jesus of lying, either in saying that the girl was dead or that she was only sleeping. But what is going on here -- wasn't Jairus' daughter actually dead? Yes, by our definition of the word. "Sleep" was a euphemism for death in the ancient world (Keener, Matthew commentary, 305), and Jesus here now draws what (as the crowd's response shows) was a peculiar distinction. Why? It is in order to announce that "in Jesus' presence it is sleep rather than a terminus of life, for the girl will come back from it after the miracle" (Witherington, Mark commentary, 190). This is also the significance of Jesus telling the people to "give place" (i.e., "Get out of my way!"). In effect he was announcing that he would be able to fix the situation.

6:1And he went out from thence, and came into his own country; and his disciples follow him. 2And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands? 3Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. 4But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house. 5And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them. 6And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching.

The offense of the locals is caused by the perception that the "local boy" has become great and has risen above others, thereby drawing from the limited pool of honor; hence, Jesus says a prophet is without honor in his own home, for his "home folk" will actually resent his success.

7And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits; 8And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse: 9But be shod with sandals; and not put on two coats. 10And he said unto them, In what place soever ye enter into an house, there abide till ye depart from that place. 11And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

See http://www.christian-thinktank.com/nostaff.html for more information. Since going barefoot in rocky Palestine would have been impossible [Har.GM, 140] Matthew's meaning would be more likely that one ought no to take an extra pair of sandals. The shaking off of dust was what Jews usually did after leaving pagan lands and also makes the best sense if they already have on sandals [Mor.GM, 249].

12And they went out, and preached that men should repent. 13And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them. 14And king Herod heard of him; (for his name was spread abroad:) and he said, That John the Baptist was risen from the dead, and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him. 15Others said, That it is Elias. And others said, That it is a prophet, or as one of the prophets. 16But when Herod heard thereof, he said, It is John, whom I beheaded: he is risen from the dead. 17For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for Herodias’ sake, his brother Philip’s wife: for he had married her. 18For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother’s wife. 19Therefore Herodias had a quarrel against him, and would have killed him; but she could not: 20For Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an holy, and observed him; and when he heard him, he did many things, and heard him gladly. 21And when a convenient day was come, that Herod on his birthday made a supper to his lords, high captains, and chief estates of Galilee; 22And when the daughter of the said Herodias came in, and danced, and pleased Herod and them that sat with him, the king said unto the damsel, Ask of me whatsoever thou wilt, and I will give it thee. 23And he sware unto her, Whatsoever thou shalt ask of me, I will give it thee, unto the half of my kingdom. 24And she went forth, and said unto her mother, What shall I ask? And she said, The head of John the Baptist. 25And she came in straightway with haste unto the king, and asked, saying, I will that thou give me by and by in a charger the head of John the Baptist. 26And the king was exceeding sorry; yet for his oath’s sake, and for their sakes which sat with him, he would not reject her. 27And immediately the king sent an executioner, and commanded his head to be brought: and he went and beheaded him in the prison, 28And brought his head in a charger, and gave it to the damsel: and the damsel gave it to her mother. 29And when his disciples heard of it, they came and took up his corpse, and laid it in a tomb.

For comparison to Mark, see http://www.tektonics.org/gk/josephusvsmarkjbapt.html From this version, these objections are relevant: